People v. Dulfo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Pedro Dulfo, was convicted of allanamiento de morada for entering the house of Dagohoy. Dulfo admitted entering the house but claimed he did so upon the invitation of Filomena, a younger daughter of Dagohoy, who allegedly opened the door for him. Filomena denied extending any invitation or admitting him. The owner of the house was absent at the time, having left his daughters, Maximina and Filomena, in charge. Procedural History: The trial court convicted Dulfo, finding that even if Filomena invited him, her invitation and admission did not relieve him of criminal responsibility because she was only 12 and 13 years old, and the entry was without the consent of the owner. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the entry into the house was made against the will of the occupant. Whether an invitation extended by a minor daughter of the householder, who was left in charge of the house, constitutes consent that negates the crime of allanamiento de morada.
Ruling
The judgment and sentence of the trial court are reversed, and the accused is acquitted. If in detention, he is to be set at liberty forthwith; if at liberty on bail, his sureties are discharged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entry against the will of the occupant: The Court held that an essential element of allanamiento de morada, as defined and penalized in the Penal Code, is that the entry must have been made without the consent or, more accurately, against the will of the occupant. The prosecution bears the burden of affirmatively establishing this fact. While consent may be presumed from circumstances like violent entry, the prosecution must still prove that the entry was made against the prohibition of the occupant, either express or implied. The preposition 'contra' (against) signifies opposition or manifest refusal, implying that entry by invitation, even if later found to be without the owner's consent due to absence, should not be considered 'against' the will unless there is clear proof of prohibition. On the issue of invitation by a minor household member: The Court considered the doctrine that an invitation by a household member generally negates the 'against the will' element. While acknowledging the trial court's concern regarding the age of Filomena (12-13 years old), the Supreme Court found that she was old enough to justify the inference that her invitation was not against the will of the householder, especially since the father was absent and there was no proof of express prohibition. The Court reasoned that it would be unreasonable to hold that an entry by invitation of a household member is criminal unless it clearly appears that such member was forbidden to extend the invitation and the entrant knew of this prohibition. All members of a household are presumed to have authority to extend invitations, consistent with common customs, and imposing an unreasonable burden on outsiders would result otherwise.
Main Doctrine
Entry into a dwelling against the will of the occupant is an essential element of the crime of allanamiento de morada. If entry is made upon the invitation of a household member, it is presumed not to be against the will of the occupant, unless it clearly appears that such member was forbidden to extend the invitation and the entrant was aware of that fact. The age of the inviting household member may be considered in determining their capacity to extend such an invitation.